1.“Federal agencies have the authority to intervene in protests, picket signs, or blockades. The law is impartial: it must be enforced without exception.”
2.“Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions.”
3.“Forces are not obligated to consider alternative entrances or pathways. If the main path is blocked, their duty is to clear it.”
4.“This action continues until the flow of traffic is fully restored.”
5.“To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing.”
6.“Instigators and organizers of the protest will be identified.”
7.“Vehicles used in the protest will be identified and subjected to citations or penalties.”
8.“Data of the instigators, accomplices, participants, and organizers will be transmitted to the authorities through appropriate channels.”
9.“Notices will be sent to the judge in cases of damage, such as burning flags.”
10.“In cases involving minors, relevant authorities will be notified, and the guardians of these youths who bring them to these demonstrations will face sanctions and punishment.”
11.“The costs incurred by security operations will be borne by the responsible organizations or individuals. In cases involving foreigners with provisional residency, information will be forwarded to the National Directorate of Immigration.”
12.“A registry will be created for organizations that participate in these types of actions.”
How do you feel about the age of consent?
That really was unfair, age of consent and copyright are two issues on which libertarians are split.
How do you feel about free speech, due process, victimless crimes, freedom of conscience?
I thought that my phrasing made it clear I’ve already supported the joke you are trying to make, to the extent it’s worth doing so.
Now let’s get back to totalitarian dictatorships, genocides and hunger. These are kinda worse than a few pedophiles.
So now you’re trying to play off your characterization of child abuse as an “issue” over which people can be “split” as a joke
For somebody who can’t get jokes without an “/s” - surely.
For others a sentence starting with “that really was unfair” and equating copyright and age of consent is clearly a joke.
Other than that I don’t need to “play off” anything for ya, we’re not in any connection which would make it important.
Now let’s get back to totalitarian dictatorships, hunger, genocides, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, due process and all that.
“Age of consent and copyright are two issues on which libertarians are split” doesn’t come across as a joke without an “/s” because it’s functionally identical to an argument a libertarian would unironically make. If that doesn’t tell you it’s a thoroughly unserious ideology, I don’t know what would.
Freedom of speech? You mean like the Western kind of
that coddles Nazis instead of throwing them in a pit?
Totalitarian dictatorships? You mean like Chiang Kai-shek’s Taiwan, the military dictatorships of South Korea, Argentina or Brazil, Pinochet’s Chile, fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Francoist Spain?
Some French communists would unironically make that argument in 1960s.
It also coddles tankies, if you know what I mean.
Yeah, those included.
are you braindead, like genuinely.
Where do you sit in regards to this split?
Against copyright, for age of consent.
In general libertarianism is voluntarism taken to the extreme, with no “general good” and emotion allowed to interfere. So common arguments for all variants are such:
Libertarian arguments for copyright are based on you accepting the agreement while buying or receiving something. If you don’t, then somebody has done that before you and violated it. Fruits of a poisoned tree.
Libertarian arguments against copyright are based on you and the authors having no other option but to use what’s given with such an agreement, and with you being deceived while told you are buying it (which would mean you can copy all you want), and in case of any technology patents with laying claim on a resource which isn’t depleted by sharing.
Libertarian arguments for age of consent are that children are not conscious enough to consent. That part is common, then variations follow. For some it makes them property of their parents, who can decide anything for them, but if after becoming adults they consider it a violation, they will be in their right to treat it as such. For some - without that “but”. For others it means that some axioms need to be chosen so that parents could, well, feed and teach and discipline their children, but couldn’t abuse them. For others it’s going to be managed by a community which will ostracize parents mistreating their children.
Libertarian arguments against age of consent are obvious - they are alive so they can consent.
Holy shit, you tried to play it off as a joke earlier and now you’re just saying that there’s an actual argument against the age of consent.
It was a joke to equate this to copyright.
I have to say it was well done of @Great_Leader_Is_Dead@hexbear.net to give you the rope to hang yourself with by asking that question. Previously, you tried to say the question was a joke to begin with, but now, instead of saying something like “It wasn’t a serious question, of course I don’t think there are two positions to take regarding the age of consent”, you post a diatribe where you do say there are two equally valid positions regarding the age of consent.
You continue to treat these two as mutually exclusive. Ask me how I can say you’ve never designed a working thing in your life.